RAJKUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') the husband-petitioner has assailed the order dated 18-12-97 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anuppur in Criminal Case No. 493/96 whereby he has refused to grant permission for compounding of the offence punishable under S. 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC').

(2.) The essential facts giving rise to the present petition are that on the basis of an FIR lodged by the wife of the petitioner the criminal law was set in motion which ultimately gave rise to Criminal Case No. 493/96 for an offence punishable under S. 498-A of IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class Anuppur. After filing of the charge-sheet in the Court, the petitioner and his wife reached an amicable settlement and the misunderstanding between them came to end. They started leading a normal conjugal life. Because of this changed scenario, the informant-wife filed an application on 18-12-97 for grant of permission to compound the offence. The learned trial Magistrate considered the application on the same day and by the impugned order came to hold that the offence in question, was not compoundable as envisaged under S. 320(2) of the Code, and accordingly refused the prayer.

(3.) Assailing the aforesaid order Mr. H. Choudhary learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court in exercise of power under S. 482 of the Code can grant permission for compounding of the offence in view of the changed factual position. It is submitted by him that if permission is not granted the criminal case would continue and its continuance is likely to create a dent in the matrimonial relationship of the petitioner and his wife. Mr. Manish Datt who was present in Court at the time of hearing of this application, volunteered to assist the Court and also made his submissions. Mr. Athya, learned G. A. for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that when the offence under S. 498-A of the Code is not compoundable under the provision of S. 320 of the Code, this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction should not grant permission for compounding.